What would it be like if we never developed skyscrapers?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
10 Answers
If there were no skyscrapers, it would probably mean we had never had the industrial revolution. Which would mean we’d still be living in squalor, and using horses as sources of transportation. We would also probably have not developed gun powder or the printing press. We’d be stuck back somewhere in the middle ages. Indeed, there probably would have been no Christianity, so most people would still be worshiping in polytheistic religions.
Or maybe the world would be Islamic. I doubt if Judaism would ever have spread much. It might have even been wiped out by Islam. No. Wait. If there had been no Jesus, could there have been a Mohammed? I think not.
So there you have it. Middle ages. Have fun!
London, 1543
Great Fire of Newcastle, 1854
Industrial London
London 1900
London, now
@wundayatta We had gun-poweder, the printing press, Christianity, Industrial Revolution ALL HUNDREDS OF YEARS before sky-scrapers. In fact, many countries in the world now have all these things (or some equivalent monotheism) WITHOUT sky-scrapers, because in most cases they are in fact unnecessary phallic prestige symbols, and many people consider them ugly.
Well, compared to the all the beautiful architecture that had gone before, especially of the preceding 200 years & the classical period. The main reason the New World is full of sky-scrapers is that all they had before were wooden shacks anyway, so even a huge brick oblong looked impressive there.
You see many skyscrapers in Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, etc? They have the highest standard of living on the planet. Skyscrapers are very cool, but pretty stupid if you do it like NYC.
@The_Idler I’m not sure what you are trying to say, but my point is that those things are part of the process that enabled us to build skyscrapers. So, working backwards, if we can’t build skyscrapers, it would be because the things leading to it never happened.
Without printing presses, it would be very difficult to transfer knowledge, so people wouldn’t learn nearly as much. Without gunpowder, the field of metallurgy may not have advanced so quickly. We might still be doing bronze age metal work.
Prices for land would be more.
Cities would be less congested, people wise. However, streets would be more narrow and the city would need to be in larger areas.
Businesses would have to pay for larger pieces of land so prices would go up.
Finding land for garbage dumps may prove difficult with the lack of land
On the other hand.
9/11 would’ve never happened.
Homes would have to remain small and practical.
Places that suffer from earth quakes will fare better after a large eathquake.
It will be more like Japan. Japan does have its skyscrappers but not as many and not as high because of all the earth quakes.
@wundayatta I’m trying to say that in the context of the question, the reason for there not being skyscrapers need not necessarily be that they would be impossible to construct because we’re living in the bronze age.
If that were the case, itd be a very boring question, the answer to which would be “the bronze age”. I think looking at the question in terms of “What would it be like if we never developed skyscrapers, (but still everything else)” makes for some actual imaginative discussion…
@Pandora I don’t think prices would be so much higher- in fact they may be less. The astronomical property prices in super-tall areas are mainly due to the expense of building such structures, and the prestige associated with the towers and with the addresses. The reality is that all business could be integrated electronically and everyone could work from low-rise buildings, spread about the country. This is generally how it is in the UK and perhaps most of Europe. The huge towers you see in the City and Docklands are simply prestige-symbols.
Despite being a couple of the most densely populated nations on Earth, the UK and the Netherlands do not have huge amounts of sky-scrapers, and nor do we have much trouble disposing of waste (garbage). New York City, on the other hand, the original sky-scraper city, has world famous garbage issues (this may be a somewhat out-dated image, I don’t know, but the fact remains that serious problems with waste disposal were created by the abundance of high-rises).
I think it’d be hard to say what the New World would be like without towers, but there are plenty of examples in the Old World. Rich, modern, populous cities don’t need skyscrapers. They’re basically the same as American cities, but so much more open, with better light, less wind-tunnelling & fucking beautiful architecture in comparison.
Paris
Paris
Paris
@The_Idler What you find boring, another might find interesting. I was trying to imagine a plausible reason for this, not just assuming it by fiat. Just doing cartoon renditions of a what-if scenario bores me to tears. Yaaaaawwwwnnnn.
There’d probably be a lot more smaller buildings scattered around a larger area to accomidate all those offices, and condos and stores and restaurants, now occupying those skyscrapers. The only thing that may not now exist is those top floor observation lookouts.
@The_Idler How do skyscrapers contribute to problems with garbage disposal?
Answer this question 
